there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

[G.T.]

Red does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe our brains reaction to certain wave lengths of light. It is not a color, it is a biochemical reaction and entirely dependent upon the make-up of the brain reacting to that stimuli. It has no external existence of any kind and the reaction itself can occur independent of any outside stimuli.

thanks for proving my point

red does not exist, we created it to communicate that which exists

No. We created a word to give our environment meaning. But it in no way describe what actually exits. If anything, it describes an illusion.

yea, no.

If you don't start with the axiom "I exist," then you are not even relevant to me.

 

[PratchettFan]

Red does not exist. It is just a word we use to describe our brains reaction to certain wave lengths of light. It is not a color, it is a biochemical reaction and entirely dependent upon the make-up of the brain reacting to that stimuli. It has no external existence of any kind and the reaction itself can occur independent of any outside stimuli.

I suggest the wavelengths must objectively be there in order to be subjectively interpreted. The wavelengths compose the objective reality we describe as 'redness'. The existence of that objective reality is by no means contingent on our subjective interpretations of it. In other words: what the vast majority of humans would describe as red may well have objective autonomy outside of our perceptions of it.

I disagree the wavelengths compose the objective reality. If I am dreaming (and I dream in color) I perceive red without any outside stimuli. Redness is our attempt to make sense of something, but how we do that has nothing to do with that reality. We perceive the reaction, not the stimuli. It is entirely internal.

Everything else you said I totally agree with.

 

[PratchettFan]

Factual evidence has been provided.

No. Just a definition and we have already established that a definition does not equate to truth.

Correct, the truth "just is" and the definitions of the words used merely described said truth, irrefutably in which case is in fact.

I am correct that a definition does not equate to truth, unless you declare it irrefutable in which case it magically becomes truth. How nice for you.

As I said, I do not argue your logic but your thinking is muddy.

 

[G.T.]

Much like "red" cannot be right or wrong but merely describes that which is, as determined by our sense -

"Knowledge" as a term that cannot be right or wrong, it simply describes that which is. <perceivable information or truth>.

"All" as a term cannot be right or wrong, it simply describes that which is. <the whole of existence>


We can call "knowledge" wine, and "all" teapot, and say that a being with teapot wine cannot be absent the wine that it is teapot wine - by its very virtue.

.

 

[G.T.]

No. Just a definition and we have already established that a definition does not equate to truth.

Correct, the truth "just is" and the definitions of the words used merely described said truth, irrefutably in which case is in fact.

I am correct that a definition does not equate to truth, unless you declare it irrefutable in which case it magically becomes truth. How nice for you.

As I said, I do not argue your logic but your thinking is muddy.

My thinking is clear, you can't comprehend it and the difference between the logic I used and the logic you used was apparent.

 

[PratchettFan]

thanks for proving my point

red does not exist, we created it to communicate that which exists

No. We created a word to give our environment meaning. But it in no way describe what actually exits. If anything, it describes an illusion.

yea, no.

If you don't start with the axiom "I exist," then you are not even relevant to me.

I am fine with that. If you are not willing to start with reality then you are just another believer.

 

[PratchettFan]

Correct, the truth "just is" and the definitions of the words used merely described said truth, irrefutably in which case is in fact.

I am correct that a definition does not equate to truth, unless you declare it irrefutable in which case it magically becomes truth. How nice for you.

As I said, I do not argue your logic but your thinking is muddy.

My thinking is clear, you can't comprehend it and the difference between the logic I used and the logic you used was apparent.

I am sure you think your thinking is clear.

 

[G.T.]

No. We created a word to give our environment meaning. But it in no way describe what actually exits. If anything, it describes an illusion.

yea, no.

If you don't start with the axiom "I exist," then you are not even relevant to me.

I am fine with that. If you are not willing to start with reality then you are just another believer.

Reality is that I exist.

Failure to start there is an ill understanding of reality.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I am not omniscient.

That is an absolute truth.

If I were, I'd know that I was as an all knowing entity.

No. There is not. You have that knowledge precisely because there is an absolute mind of origination. You would not have such absolute knowledge in the absence of that absolute mind of origination because you wouldn't exist otherwise.

Mind precedes matter. Only doofuses imagine that mindless matter could create something greater than itself.

 

[G.T.]

I am not omniscient.

That is an absolute truth.

If I were, I'd know that I was as an all knowing entity.

No. There is not. You have that knowledge precisely because there is an absolute mind of origination. You would not have such absolute knowledge in the absence of that absolute mind of origination because you wouldn't exist otherwise.

Mind precedes matter. Only doofese imagine that mindless matter could create something greater than itself.

That is not logic it is an appeal to an improvable deity.

 

[G.T.]

morals also exist without an appeal to a deity : )

 

[rdean]

there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

any deity?

Yes, any deity.

So what's an "absolute truth"? Just asking.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am not omniscient.

That is an absolute truth.

If I were, I'd know that I was as an all knowing entity.

No. There is not. You have that knowledge precisely because there is an absolute mind of origination. You would not have such absolute knowledge in the absence of that absolute mind of origination because you wouldn't exist otherwise.

Mind precedes matter. Only doofese imagine that mindless matter could create something greater than itself.

That is not logic it is an appeal to an improvable deity.

The amusing thing is that both of you are using precisely the same thought process to arrive at opposite conclusions.

 

[G.T.]

No. There is not. You have that knowledge precisely because there is an absolute mind of origination. You would not have such absolute knowledge in the absence of that absolute mind of origination because you wouldn't exist otherwise.

Mind precedes matter. Only doofese imagine that mindless matter could create something greater than itself.

That is not logic it is an appeal to an improvable deity.

The amusing thing is that both of you are using precisely the same thought process to arrive at opposite conclusions.

Which is not true.

 

[G.T.]

there is absolute truth without appeal to a deity

any deity?

Yes, any deity.

So what's an "absolute truth"? Just asking.

One that can not be falsified.

 

[sealybobo]

Wow! It just dawned on me. All these anti gay christians who insist it takes one woman and one man to make a person, they somehow can put that out of their heads when it comes to god(s). Shouldn't there actually be two gods? The mother and father? Wow I just blew my own mind. LOL.

 

[jillian]

Which has nothing to do with following a code of morality, which is really the utmost reasoning for people to have faith in a power higher than themselves, be it real or an invention of Man.

And that's the truth.

some of the most moral people I know have no religion. morality is not a justification for belief.

Islamic extremists have religion and *believe* they are moral. do you think they are?

 

[PratchettFan]

Which has nothing to do with following a code of morality, which is really the utmost reasoning for people to have faith in a power higher than themselves, be it real or an invention of Man.

And that's the truth.

some of the most moral people I know have no religion. morality is not a justification for belief.

Islamic extremists have religion and *believe* they are moral. do you think they are?

I think they think they are. It is the nature of the myth of good vs evil is that both sides believe they are good and the other evil.

 

[PratchettFan]

Wow! It just dawned on me. All these anti gay christians who insist it takes one woman and one man to make a person, they somehow can put that out of their heads when it comes to god(s). Shouldn't there actually be two gods? The mother and father? Wow I just blew my own mind. LOL.

It take a woman or a man to make a person. It takes two persons to make a couple. Three persons make for an interesting evening.

 

[G.T.]

No, it takes a woman or a man to BE a person, it takes a woman AND a man to MAKE a person.